Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

It should be titled "strong atheism v. reality". #riseagnosticatheists

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

So, essentially what you're saying is that you're playing peekaboo with the universe instead of a small baby. Close your eyes and the universe magically disappears. LOL.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;"

Never before had I considered that thoughts were mental conceptions or that things our minds conceive are mental. It is almost as if you are just stating the definition of words as if that made an argument.

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

Why didn't you go ahead and present this argument to begin with? The rest of your post is a word diarrhea of defining words that are commonly known, giving a bunch of self obvious example of those words, and a complete waste of time to bother reading. The one actual argument you want to make you leave out... that is an odd way of writing something.

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

You are referring to physicalism not atheism.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

Color is not a property of objects, you contradict your quote below.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

What you are attacking is common-sense-realism, not metaphysical realism. I thought you wanted to take a break to get familiar with the literature.

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

I disagree.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

So, you think dualism is wrong and it has to be idealism or materialism?

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

OK, so are you saying the mind is not physical? If so, what evidence do you have for that?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Oh, so you are using semantics.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Depends on how you define color.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

You are making the mistake of deciding that an object is only mental or non-mental. That's like saying an object is only quantifiable or non-quantifiable. Objects have mental properties and non-mental properties, just like they have properties that can be quantified and properties that can't. And those non-mental properties interact with parts of our bodies to create our illusory perception of reality. The quote you provide at the end about color supports this. There is no physical red, blue, etc. Those are how our vision interprets wavelengths of light. The light itself has this non-mental property of a wavelength. We can't perceive the actual wavelength, but we can perceive its effects (color). Your bald assertion that non-mental and mental can't interact is confused at best, if not simply wrong.

Our perception of reality is effectively an illusion. I accept this. I'll ask this question for the fifth time now: So what?

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

It should be titled "strong atheism v. reality". #riseagnosticatheists

It's a problem of ontology, not epistemology. If it were an epistemic problem that might solve it

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

I disagree ....

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

Maybe we can, if the hypotheses of Noetic science (meh, I don't believe in it -- just acknowledging the *possibility*) ....

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

So, essentially what you're saying is that you're playing peekaboo with the universe instead of a small baby. Close your eyes and the universe magically disappears. LOL.

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;"

Never before had I considered that thoughts were mental conceptions or that things our minds conceive are mental. It is almost as if you are just stating the definition of words as if that made an argument.

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

Why didn't you go ahead and present this argument to begin with? The rest of your post is a word diarrhea of defining words that are commonly known, giving a bunch of self obvious example of those words, and a complete waste of time to bother reading. The one actual argument you want to make you leave out... that is an odd way of writing something.

Because the mind is a necessary precondition for mentally perceiving or conceiving. Nothing can relate or be of the mind if the mind doesn't exist. Therefore realty can't be fundamentally mental if the mind doesn't exist or yet exist. Sounds, colors, smells, textures, etc., etc., would not exist in a universe devoid of consciousness because none of those things exist as any inherent physical property.

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

Why didn't you go ahead and present this argument to begin with? The rest of your post is a word diarrhea of defining words that are commonly known, giving a bunch of self obvious example of those words, and a complete waste of time to bother reading. The one actual argument you want to make you leave out... that is an odd way of writing something.

Because the mind is a necessary precondition for mentally perceiving or conceiving. Nothing can relate or be of the mind if the mind doesn't exist. Therefore realty can't be fundamentally mental if the mind doesn't exist or yet exist. Sounds, colors, smells, textures, etc., etc., would not exist in a universe devoid of consciousness because none of those things exist as any inherent physical property.

All of those things would exist as inherent physical properties. Changes in pressure in air (or other medium), electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths, small particles suspended in air, materials of various composition resulting in non-uniform surfaces, etc, etc are not dependent on their being a mind. Without a mind there isn't anyone around to decide what is loud or quiet, what name to give to wavelengths of different frequencies they can perceive, what stinks or smells pleasant, or what is rough or smooth, etc, etc.

Reality exists external to the mind but the somewhat arbitrary terms humans have agreed to use based on common experience are mental.

"Here's where the problem begins: If you reject the existence of God, you're rejecting the possibility that reality is fundamentally mental."

And I would say a couple of things here.

First..I believe you would be better-served to say that reality is fundamentally "perceptual" instead of "mental." That is, that it all boils down to one's individual perception. It is NOT mental./ Reality is usually physical.

Example: get up from your PC right now and look at that wall in front of you and mentally perceive or imagine it to be not-solid. So you can run through it. And hey, shouldn't you be able to, after all? Since it is comprised of 99% empty space. That's right, the actuall nucleus of the atoms and their orbiting and even far-smaller electrons are miniscule. The nucleus of any given atom the equivalent of a football sitting at the 50-yard line in the Superdome, with the electron clouds being the outside stadium walls!

LOL...so go for it! Run through that wall.

Nope. Imagine all you want. The wall is real. (BTW: it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind the atoms and the molecules--respectively--that renders you unable to penetrate that brick wall.

So....sure, we can perceive thing differently and wax philosophical and parse words byt most of what we think comprises reality is unchangeable by our perception. We might perceive it differently, but it remains what it is: that wall; your inability to lift 1000 pounds over your head; your inability due to gravity to jump 20 feet in the air; the Earth orbiting the Sun once every year; you not being able to breathe underwater, et al.

But for God? Not a shred of proof. No matter how one tweaks his perception. (You might want to check out a post I just did on another thread to a guy who, tired of getting beat-up in arguments against his fictitious god, tried to change the rules and asked for "non-physical proof." Which I believe I provided.)

That color you mentioned. Here's an amusing anectdote for ya. DO you realize that the color you and I attribute to something is actually the ONE COLOR that it IS NOT? LOL.

That is right. The red color you call that Camaro that just went by is actually the one color--more accurately, the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum--that it is reflecting at your optic nerve. Thus, it is not imbued, or OF that color, but is rejecting it. Thus, is any color BUT the one we call it!

(Forgive me for digressing: I have a strong physics background and I love to discuss such matters.)

So...what you are trying to do in your OP is parse words and call into question the methods us Atheists use to try and disprove god. But every time you guys try a new tack, we rise to it and refute it again, before you once again change the rules on us. It is like a kid who gets tired of losing a board game so he looks at the rules on the box and re-writes them so as to make his chances at winning better.

Not fair. And in a true debate forum with a moderator such tactics would not would not fly.

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

Only gods that have been *posited* can be "rejected." I reject all gods that have been posited. I reject all "holy" manuscripts as delusional garbage. If there is a god, it is one that has not yet been posited by humans. It has not yet been posited, so I have not yet rejected it. I reject only one more god than you reject. We are very nearly equally agnostic...

"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

You are referring to physicalism not atheism.

Atheism, by definition, excludes the possibility of reality originating from mind. Think about it. How could reality be fundamentally mental if a mind doesn't exist?

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

Color is not a property of objects, you contradict your quote below.

Color is a property of an object only when observed by consciousness.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

What you are attacking is common-sense-realism, not metaphysical realism. I thought you wanted to take a break to get familiar with the literature.

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

You are referring to physicalism not atheism.

Atheism, by definition, excludes the possibility of reality originating from mind.

No, atheism makes no claim about the philosophy of mind.

Think about it. How could reality be fundamentally mental if a mind doesn't exist?

Wait, wait, wait. Mind doesn't exist? Who said that?

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

Color is not a property of objects, you contradict your quote below.

Color is a property of an object only when observed by consciousness.

Color is an interpretation of sense perception by the brain. No object has color in the literal sense.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

What you are attacking is common-sense-realism, not metaphysical realism. I thought you wanted to take a break to get familiar with the literature.

You are attacking naive realism when you say "Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception". The vast majority of realists would deny that how we percieve the world is how the world actually is. You are attacking a strawman.

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

I disagree.

See above.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

So, you think dualism is wrong and it has to be idealism or materialism?

The *fundamental* reality must be one or the other. Which came first, consciousness or non-consciousness? There's no in between.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

OK, so are you saying the mind is not physical? If so, what evidence do you have for that?

Let's assume that the mind is an entirely physical phenomenon. Our perception of color, and objective reality for that matter, depends on a specific configuration of physical constituents.

If the perception of an actual state of affairs (such as the existence of color) is only determined by physical configuration, and physical configurations alter what can be known about an actual state of affairs, then our perceptions are demonstrably unreliable. There can be no such thing as an actual state of affairs or an objective reality. Physicalism is a claim that utilizes our perceptions to posit an actual state of affairs (that everything is physical). It's self-refuting.

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Oh, so you are using semantics.

No it's the use of axioms. The terms themselves convey the axioms.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Depends on how you define color.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

So, you think dualism is wrong and it has to be idealism or materialism?

The *fundamental* reality must be one or the other. Which came first, consciousness or non-consciousness? There's no in between.

That did not address his question.

OK, so are you saying the mind is not physical? If so, what evidence do you have for that?

Let's assume that the mind is an entirely physical phenomenon. Our perception of color, and objective reality for that matter, depends on a specific configuration of physical constituents.

If the perception of an actual state of affairs (such as the existence of color) is only determined by physical configuration, and physical configurations alter what can be known about an actual state of affairs, then our perceptions are demonstrably unreliable.

Perhaps not demostrably, but yes of course. One doesn't need to be an expert in psychology or biology to know how often we fool ourselfs/ our intuitions are mistaken about, say, optical illusions.

There can be no such thing as an actual state of affairs or an objective reality.

That is a nonsequitur. Just because we cannot accurately access it, it does not follow that it does not exist.

Physicalism is a claim that utilizes our perceptions to posit an actual state of affairs (that everything is physical). It's self-refuting.

I think there's a very strong evolutionary argument to be made against this "conclusion".

No it's the use of axioms. The terms themselves convey the axioms.

[...]

Disagree. It's axiomatic.

An axiom is a basic principle of a system which may or may not be proveable and may or may not be accepted due to intuition.Please formulate your axiom and give a reason why anyone should accept it.

Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

If reality is not fundamentally mental, it must be fundamentally non-mental (by law of excluded middle). Whatever is non-mental cannot interact with what is mental (by law of non-contradiction). Basically, the mind must've emerged from non-mental processes.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

We can't extend our mental perceptions to a non-mental reality.

You are making the mistake of deciding that an object is only mental or non-mental. That's like saying an object is only quantifiable or non-quantifiable. Objects have mental properties and non-mental properties, just like they have properties that can be quantified and properties that can't. And those non-mental properties interact with parts of our bodies to create our illusory perception of reality.

What options remain between mental and non-mental? Quantifiable and non-quantifiable? There are no other options. It's the law of excluded middle. It's like saying that there are more options to choose from between consciousness or non-consciousness.

If objects had non-mental properties we wouldn't be able to even be aware of them conceptually or perceptually. We can't *ever* be aware of anything non-mental. The closest you can get to something "non-mental" is a four-sided triangle. We can't even conceive of it other than placing an empty label "four-sided triangle" on it but it really just means that means "something we can't conceive of."

The quote you provide at the end about color supports this. There is no physical red, blue, etc. Those are how our vision interprets wavelengths of light. The light itself has this non-mental property of a wavelength. We can't perceive the actual wavelength, but we can perceive its effects (color). Your bald assertion that non-mental and mental can't interact is confused at best, if not simply wrong.

"Wavelength" is conceptually possible. Therefore it is mental. There is nothing conceivable or perceivable that is non-mental.

Our perception of reality is effectively an illusion. I accept this. I'll ask this question for the fifth time now: So what?

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

Why didn't you go ahead and present this argument to begin with? The rest of your post is a word diarrhea of defining words that are commonly known, giving a bunch of self obvious example of those words, and a complete waste of time to bother reading. The one actual argument you want to make you leave out... that is an odd way of writing something.

Because the mind is a necessary precondition for mentally perceiving or conceiving. Nothing can relate or be of the mind if the mind doesn't exist. Therefore realty can't be fundamentally mental if the mind doesn't exist or yet exist. Sounds, colors, smells, textures, etc., etc., would not exist in a universe devoid of consciousness because none of those things exist as any inherent physical property.

Thus making, not only your god but also, the universe a product of my mind. Hence without me neither your god nor the universe can exist.

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw

At 5/28/2015 9:15:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Reality cannot be fundamentally mental if God does not exist. If anyone disagrees with this I'll gladly be willing to argue about it.

Why didn't you go ahead and present this argument to begin with? The rest of your post is a word diarrhea of defining words that are commonly known, giving a bunch of self obvious example of those words, and a complete waste of time to bother reading. The one actual argument you want to make you leave out... that is an odd way of writing something.

Because the mind is a necessary precondition for mentally perceiving or conceiving. Nothing can relate or be of the mind if the mind doesn't exist. Therefore realty can't be fundamentally mental if the mind doesn't exist or yet exist. Sounds, colors, smells, textures, etc., etc., would not exist in a universe devoid of consciousness because none of those things exist as any inherent physical property.

A universe without a mind to perceive it may as well not exist, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there. - B. B. King

Ooh look atheism and reality are on the same side of the net and their opponents are religion and fantasy, latest news coming out of the dressing room is that R&F are both suffering serious head injuries and probably won't even be able to return a serve.

Back after this message.

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw

I think reality is our accountable understanding of shared circumstance. By that I mean one can observe and draw the same accountable conclusions from the same shared phenomena, so they can be acquitted to anyone and speak for themselves.

Since the phenomena are sharable by evidence, they are not mental, but our understanding may be. But that's okay, since reasonable minds can accept sharable evidence acquitted well.

But I think the key question to answer here isn't whether gods exist, but rather:

What if anything, grants one the authority to pronounce that our shared circumstance includes a god?

What grants you that authority, Ben? Is it acquittable evidence? If so, you must acquit it to gain the authority.

Neither is secret, revealed knowledge acquittable unless it can make new, significant, surprising and independently-verifiable predictions in our shared circumstance.

Can you do that? No? Then what establishes your authority?

Well, what refutes my claim to authority, you may ask.

Simple: vanity, lies and ignorance.

Humans are stupid, vain and deceitful. They routinely lie to one another, exaggerate, overstate their competence and expertise, conflate fear, superstition and fantasy with knowledge, and frequently get things wrong without admitting it.

So whenever a human makes a claim to special authority he cannot substantiate, we are entitled to dismiss this as a failing of reason or character, rather than evidence of an extraordinary circumstance. That's just pragmatism because the world is full of vain liars and fatuous fools with empty words. We don't have to prove each liar and fool -- we just have to note that the words are hollow, absent conspicuous expertise or evidence.

Until you can show why you in particular should be granted special authority to make great pronouncements on the nature of reality, your unsupported claims need not be considered at all.

They need not be held to be false, or true, or even possible. Nobody needs to listen to them until you can acquit either by observation or expertise that you know something independently verifiable, and don't just desperately want it to be true.

We can only be aware of reality mentally. Everything that we know to be real is processed by our minds. Colors, shapes, textures, size, weight, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., are all mental descriptors. Even things such as ideas and thoughts are mental conceptions. Anything that our mind can conceive or perceive of is mental because mental "refers to aspects of, or things related to, the mind;". Inanimate objects are mental. "The physical" is mental. Anything and everything that we could possibly know to be real is mental. Ready for the kicker?

I fail to see how being able to observe something equates to it being related to the mind.

Atheism is an ontological claim that is logically incompatible with being an ontological claim if true. Why? Because if the fundamental reality is non-mental, it would be impossible to conceive or perceive of it. If that is the case, having a stake in an ontological claim (rejecting God's existence) is impossible. The mental reality is illusory. It emerged from a non-mental prior state of affairs. The non-mental reality is the real one.

Here's an example that illustrates this : imagine a universe devoid of sentient life. Would this universe have color? (brown, red, yellow, blue, green)? No, it wouldn't.

By the below definition, that would depend on what qualifies as sentient life. Animals? Insects? If the universe were devoid of sight, then the universe would be without color. Sentience really has nothing to do with it.

Color: the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.

"Point is, light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn"t any objective "real" color in the world."http://www.askamathematician.com...

"Reality", as we're aware of it, is just a mental perception.

Yes, our awareness of reality is mental, but "awareness of reality" is not the same thing as "reality". Really, we are only partially aware of reality,